we will look at what options the administration has to tighten gun control laws with or without congressional action. our guest will be david ingram, a justice department correspondent for reuters. ♪ host: money and guns continued to dominate the conversation here in washington this holiday season, and we will focus on both of those issues this morning. yesterday, press conferences on the fiscal cliff negotiations. >> republicans continue to work to avoid the fiscal cliff. $1.30 trillion in revenues, $850

billion in spending reductions fails to meet the test that the president promised the american people as a balanced approach. i hope the president will get serious about working with us on a balanced approach. tomorrow, the house will pass legislation to make permanent tax relief for nearly every american. 99.81% of the american people. the president can call on senate democrats to pass that bill, or he can be responsible for the largest tax increase in american history. host: joining us by phone is susan ferrechio, chief congressional correspondent for the "washington examiner." if 51-second press conference.

guest: there have been press occurrences in the past where the speaker has come out and made a brief statement and not answer questions. to come out and say we are going to pass this bill and say the ball is in your court. the republicans want more cuts. i think they have shown a willingness to put tax revenue on the table. i do not think speaker boehner can get much more past unless there are cuts. even the most moderate of republicans say their willingness to raise the tax rates and put revenue on the table is truly dependent on whether they feel like they are getting spending reductions they think are necessary to reduce the nation's debt been begging

you heard the speaker say the word "balanced." that is a key word. let's make that even. i think once both sides get to a number that is pretty close to even, i think we're going to get a deal. host: what is happening today on the house floor? guest: for weeks now, some republicans have been saying what we need to do -- the president has been winning the p.r. campaign on this. what we need to do is pass our own bill to put pressure on the democrats. they will come in today and they will take up a measure that will extend the bush era tax cuts for

a certain segment of income earners, those who make below $1 million. it stops the overall tax cuts for everybody which is something the president has been asking for. it raises rates on so-called millionaire's. that gives the president what he has been asking for, basically which is to raise taxes on people who he considers wealthy. the president has a different number in mind. the ones to raise rates on people earning more than 200 -- the ones to raise rates on people earning more than 250,000 -- he wants to raise rates on people earning more than $250,000. it is clear that both sides will reach a number. both sides are bidding.

we do not have a winning number yet. host: do you expect the congress to be in this weekend? guest: that is a great question. having talked to some republican leadership aides, the expectation is most recently they will come in today and pass this measure, and tomorrow they have to take up some other matters. then they will go home. now, there is talk about them returning on the 26th and the 27 which are the days following christmas. people are speculating if the president and boehner are meeting, perhaps there can be something agreed upon or they would stay in and get the work done through the weekend. anything is possible at this point because both sides are still talking and both sides are

trying to work out something that can pass the house and the senate and be signed into law. it would require passage by the democratic minority and maybe just a small number of republicans. he really needs a number he can pass through the house with the majority of his conference. host: susan ferrechio is the chief congressional correspondent for the "washington examiner." here is an article from the c- span website that explains what the votes of today are about adn the rules surrounding those votes. you could go to c-span.org to read this article. the other issue in washington is of course the gun laws. here is an article from "the new

york times." here is a picture of chad knox in ohio. just a little bit from this article --

we want to spend this first section of the "washington journal" asking gun owners only to call in and whether or not they think any of the gun laws should be changed. you can see the phone numbers on your screen. you can also contact us by social media as well. please identify yourself as a gun owner. you can make a comment on facebook page. or send an e-mail.

a little bit more from this "new york times" article --

that is in "the new york times" this morning. from "the washington post" --

that is an "the washington post." gun owners only we want to hear thinkwhether or not use iyou gun laws should be changed. caller: i do not think gun laws should be changed. in new york, we are in a quandary still with the assault weapons ban. as a citizen in new york,

assault weapons did not drop in new york. they still have their own assault weapons ban. you can have assault weapons in new york as long as they are manufactured before 1994. host: what kind of weapon do you own customer caller: i got rid of misl weapons because it was a money thing. i have the small caliber .22's right now. host: hi, ron. what do you think about the gun laws as a gun owner? caller: i have two weapons and i call them weapons because i served in our military. i have a critter gun to take care of small rodent. i would never consider an ar-15 for that purpose and an extended clip for something like rabbits

or groundhogs is laughable. i also own a 12 gauge shotgun. as a person who handles an assault weapon, i can tell you they are designed to maximize killing of human beings. they are not sporting weapons of any kind, and allow people to have them with extended clips is laughable. i expect members of the nra are going to continue to expel this mischaracterization of what these weapons are for. host: frank is from oklahoma. we want to show the front page of "usa today" this morning. caller: i do not think the laws

need to be changed. i have a 380 that i carry as a concealed weapon. it is about the same size as a 9 millimeter. host: so it is a handgun. caller: i carry it as a concealed weapon and i am licensed to do that. i have a home defense weapon that i use, a model 191145 caliber semi-automatic. host: do you carry that into a weapon with you at all times? why? caller: yes. physicallyow and limited as far as my own self defense is concerned. there is a lot of crime in our neighborhood.

the helicopter's flight over here all the time chasing criminals. i would like to mention something about the sandy hook incident. i found it ironic that these people were meeting in the school for all this prayer. when prayer's outlawed in school. also, they had the high priest of abortion there giving his appeal which became very political. that is just ironic. host: a lot of the conversation is about these extended clips. how do you feel about those? caller: i have a different take on owning assault rifles and extended clips and things like that.

we are guaranteed by our constitution bill of rights to be able to own these things. it is not necessarily for home protection as much as it is to be ready in case we need to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants or to protect ourselves from invasion. i don't see anything wrong with being able to own these. i tell you what. that sandy hoook thing was such a crushing event for all of us. we have to think this stuff through more. host: have you ever had the opportunity to use your weapon or to pull it out? caller: not since vietnam. host: scott, good morning. caller: i believe the gun laws should be changed.

these gun-free zones should go away. if you want to change the gun laws, those zones should go way. if i am not mistaken, the ar-15 was in the car. it was not even used in the massacre. host: what kind of weapon do you own? caller: i carry a 380 lcp. i use an 870 remington pump for home defense. i use a hunting rifle which has the same caliber as an ar-15. i have had to show it one time and the fellow changed his mind about wanting to get in my car with me.

host: front page of "the washington times" regarding the commission that president obama announced yesterday -- fort pierce, florida, good morning to you. do you think gun laws should be changed? color coat yes,i d. do.er: yes, i we used to go hunting, me and my friends, all the time. i cannot understand why we need assault weapons to go hunting when we just shoot rabbits and squirrels. you would have the swiss cheese. assault weapons is nothing but to kill a massive amount of people. it is a military weapon. we are not at war here in

america. i can understand that we need to arm ourselves but that weapon has no business being in the hands of the american people. that was horrible what happened to those kids over there in connecticut. if we do not stand together, we ought to throw it out the window and protect american citizens. if we cannot do that, we have failed as an american people. host: what kind of gun do you own? caller: i have a shotgun, a rifle, and a pistol. i used to keep them in the house. i don't have them in the house no more. to me, you know, and i love hunting, but assault weapons -- it just has no business.

host: have you ever been a member of the nra? caller: no, never been a member of the nra. host: from our facebook page, jess says -- jeff says -- nicholas, what kind of gun do you have? caller: i have two fire armas, an ak-47, and an ar-15 bought as recently as yesterday. host: why did you buy one yesterday? caller: i have wanted one for some time but just didn't. in anticipation of a ban, i made the decision to go out and purchase one. that being said, i want to say i

am in favor of huge increases in gun-control law. i think one of the things that is most disturbing to me is to hear fear mongering on both sides of the conversation whether it is coming from anti- gun or pro-gun individuals. what i hear from the pro-gun individuals is that the way to combat crime is to throw more guns at it. i could not possibly disagree more. i think there are some people who should not have guns, definitely should not have guns, this individual involved in the sandy hook tragedy. there are people who should not have the right to. i am in favor of have the background checks. whether the money comes from the

gun buyer and the cost goes up in order to get proper background checks done or you just don't buy a gun. i think a huge problem that the guns being used to commit these crimes are usually unlawfully picked up or bought. i think there was a representative of new york who made a statement saying he had out of all the gun crimes that have occurred, they found one of them in a year was actually committed by someone who illegally obtained a gun and all other crimes were committed by illegally bought weapons. host: what was your background check like when you went in to buy again yesterday? how much did it cost? you say there should be more laws about guns but you went to

go by one. caller: there should be a limitation in who can purchase a gun. i think they should demonstrate that they are mentally sound mind and absolutely no criminal background record. anything that could be a red flag for mental disturbance should immediately despite the individual from picking up a weapon. i do not believe in the right to say what weapons you can and cannot own. there is no reason to own an automatic weapon. a lot of people say there is also no reason to own a semi- automatic assault rifle. i disagree with people saying we need it for home defense. if you choose to own a semi- automatic assault rifle and you are safe and take safety as something that is very serious

and mentally in the capacity to do that, they should have the right to do it. the difference between myself owner and theolonany other gun individual in the massacre is what is going on in their head. if we take a hard-line approach to screen out these individuals, which we are not doing -- our system is flawed. there are people who are buying guns who should not be allowed to buy guns. host: what was the background check for you? caller: the one i bought yesterday was a 10-day background check. i am in favor of longer and a much more in-depth background check. california is considered to have one of the strictest.

on my ak-47 in oregon when i was going to the university of oregon, i had no background check. i bought that thing with a paper license and was in and out within 10 minutes. before i could get to the door, they tried to pitch me on getting a concealed carry and buying more ammunition. host: how much was the ak-47? caller: about $450. host: here is a comment from our facebook page -- if you want to continue this conversation on our facebook page, you can go to facebook.com/c-span. you will be able to join in on the conversation.

do you think gun laws should be changed? eric? caller: can you hear me? i absolutely think they should be changed. i do not think there is any reason whatsoever for anyone to own an assault weapon. there is no function for them in sportsman life at all. the only reason is for people to feel macho. i own a couple of hunting rifles and a shotgun. host: front page of "the washington post" --

the nra is scheduled to hold a press conference at their headquarters about 20 miles outside of washington tomorrow. there are scheduled to hold a press conference tomorrow, and c-span cameras will be there. here is more from "the washington post" --

again, this is a front-page story in "to washington post." next up is john in new mexico. john, tell us your story. caller: good morning. i was raised in texas, and my grandfather had a farm. a rite of passage is when a boy turns six or seven, you teach them how to shoot with a .22. we never had more than anything with three bullets in it. we would go out in the woods with two bullets sometimes and we could shoot two deer. that is all we brought. the man had two bullets in a

double barrel shotgun. i just do not understand. right now i have a remington bicentennial 742 semi-automatic hunting rifle. it is probably the most beautiful rifle remington ever made. it shoots four. you can put three and the magazine. i have never needed more than one bullet. host: all that said, john, what changes would you support to the current gun laws? caller: we need to do away with all of these big clips. you take any gun and put a big magazine in it, you make it a war gun. who buy these

guns and there are so many people buying guns that do not have any business owning a gun. who's to say who has the right to own a gun and who doesn't? that is when we get into a problem. this guy got into a fight with his wife once. this guy cannot own a gun because -- you get into a lot of gray areas. if we made a law where your gun can hold six shots. period. that means your magazines have to be altered to where there is a stub in there and and it can only hold six. that would save some lives. you are not going to save all the lives. don't forget the fertilizer bomber.

he used a truck and some fertilizer. you are not going to stop the crazy man but we need to stop these easy access to these war guns better tools of mass destruction. there is no business a private citizen has with big clips or any assault rifles. there are at least a dozen different assault rifles that are relatively cheap with those big clips. that ought to make people turn them in. host: we have to leave it there. senator charles schumer from new york in an op ed this morning in "the washington post" --

senator charles schumer concludes this way --

that is senator charles schumer. randy is from california, good morning. caller: good morning. i feel the nra should not have 4 million members. i feel like they do not have a real debate for this situation. i remember watching c-span and assault weapons -- it had 60 days before and it was going to expire. we had immaturity house and senate for the republican party. i was really disappointed because i was so angry. was going to buy two ak-47's with a bunch of ammunition here in california.

win california decides what happens, it goes to the rest -- when california decides what happens, it goes to the rest of the nation. assault weapons are too dangerous and they are not the right thing we should do. from northlene carolina, good morning. caller: good morning. i am 64. i went to go get my permits so i could purchase a firearm about a month ago. my friend started a gun making business. i wanted to support him and his family so i purchased one. a woman needs protection when

she has nobody around to help. i decided because of my granddaughter that i would get a permit and help her get hers. purchase ouro weapons from my friend who is going to help us decide what to use. i am also disabled and i own a business. i feel more comfortable that i have some way to protect myself because i cannot run. the other thing i wanted to say was that this always seems to be happening with the men. it seems like the government is easing up on taking control of defendople so they can't

themselves in case of a crooked government. i know there is a lot to worry about but that is what i worry about. i am not always going to be here to try to protect my family so i want them to try to learn how to protect themselves. host: here is a reporter from the state department in "the new york times of" -- " --

there is a hearing live today at 1:00 p.m. on c-span3. this is a house foreign affairs committee about the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi. this morning, the senate foreign relations committee will be holding a hearing with several stateauthorities from the department. those to debut hearings, both live. the one at 8:00 a.m. this morning will be live on c-span 2, and the hearing at 1:00 p.m. today at 1:00 p.m.

on c-span3. from "politico" this morning -- that is from "politico." this is an ad this morning and "the washington post." -- in "the washington post." it is sponsored by -- the senator was on the appropriations committee for quite a while. the senator will lie in state

today and the capitol rotunda. he will arrive at 9:50 this morning and then a service will be held in the rotunda at 10:00 a.m. with remarks proceeding the laying of wreaths. he will lay in state from noon until tonight. this the wind is open to members of the public. -- this vieweing is open to members of the public. here is a map from "the wall street journal" showing where the strictest gun laws are. gun-control figures. the more restrictive figures are the darkest blue states. those that are least restrictive

are all the states in what. some of the shaded states have some in between. this talks a little bit about connecticut. it says -- tom, thanks for holding.

he is calling from washington state. caller: i was just calling to basically say i personally am a gun owner. i believe, yes, assault rifles have no purpose other than killing other people. same thing with the extended magazine's. i take a different approach on the idea of gun-control. i believe that the only reason why this topic has been brought up is because of the mass hysteria produced due to the recent shootings. my condolences go toward the victims who have suffered in the recent tragic events. history has shown that hysteria does not bring anything good out of it. if you really look a bit from

the stands of looking at the cold war, the reason why the soviets are agreeing and and us to not fire any weapons is because we both had them. if we keep the ones that are in place and have more people who own guns and carry guns, there will be less people willing to commit crimes or commit acts of violence if they realize more people are around them have guns. host: pennsylvania, you are on c-span this morning. caller: good morning. host: what kind of weapon do you have? caller: i have quite a few. i have a 30-30, a 380, a 9 millimeter, and a couple of other ones.

i have four kids. i was raised with guns. and my kids were raised with guns. all of them are gun owners also. i can understand getting rid of assault rifles and extended clips. as myself, you know, my husband -- they were saying about mentally disabled and things like that then bank that is a gray area, too, because my husband suffers from ptsd but that is from being in the military. he would never heard any of us. people have to really think about -- they want to make these different changes, but you have to think about who you say who can do what. from or had as burgers oasper%

whatever. it is a real great area but i feel for these families. i have kids myself. if anything ever happened to my children, i would be devastated. host: is there a reason why you have this many guns? caller: i have been carjacked before. that is when i decided to start carrying. host: thank you for sharing your story with us this morning. doug in arlington, virginia. caller: my lovely wife and i are both shooters and we both have conceal carry permits. we favor looser, not tighter, restrictions on guns right now

and then we thought there ought to be fewer of these gun-free zones. we already have this national conversation about gun control. the second amendment and gun owners keep on winning it. when we sit down and look at the logic, our side always comes out on top. host: arlington is a pretty low crime area. do you take your weapon around arlington with you? caller: i have not left the house unarmed for the last 15 years i think. host: why? caller: it is like having insurance or wearing a seat belt in your car. it is the type of insurance against a very small probability of something happening bad, but when it happens, it really is bad.

why not be prepared? host: what was the permitting process for you like? caller: well, we took -- since i am a military veteran, that waives the training requirements. nevertheless, we have taken many courses in handguns, rifles, shotguns, carbines. when you have that, you merely fill out a form, apply, check all the boxes that confirm you do not have a criminal history or that you don't use drugs or that you are some kind of a mental patients. the police then run a background check. you give your fingerprint the first time you apply for a license. you wait 45 days. on the 45th day here in arlington, the clerk issues you

the permit. host: thank you for sharing your experience been been very quickly, a couple more articles. by e was a letter sent dianne feinstein, an article in "the new york times." this too in "the new york times" -- senator rockefeller has introduced a bill on video game violence. this was just introduced yesterday to examine the impact of violent content including video games on children. finally, the front page of "the baltimore sun" this morning --

coming up, we have two members of congress, congressman tim huelskamp and about 45 minutes, but coming up next, congressman john yarmuth. as we mentioned earlier, the then does the report came out from the accountability -- the benghazi report came out from the accountability -- >> in responsibility of the life the loss of life rests completely and solely with the terrorists who conducted the attacks. that does not mean there are not lessons to be learned. the board found the compound was inadequate for the threat and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place

that night. state department bureaus had not taken on security as a shared responsibility, so the support needed was often lacking. the building did not meet department standards for office buildings in high threat areas. it fell through the cracks bureaucratically by being characterized as temporary residential facilities. while a number of top rates were done in 2012, at the time of the attacks, the compound did not have all of the security features and equipment it needed. the board found that the staffing system and the inadequacy of the diplomatic security staffing numbers could be a major factor behind the weakness of the security platform. the continue rotation of agents inhibited the development of

knowledge and continuity and security decisions and implementation. the question is not whether an additional number of agents would have made a difference which is very difficult to answer, but whether a stronger staffing platform over the course of 2012 could have established some deterrence by giving it the continuity and experience on the ground to make it harder targets for terrorist. >> "washington journal" continues. host: knelt on your screen is congressman john yarmuth from kentucky here to talk about some of the gun issues we have been discussing this morning. congressman yarmuth, in yesterday's "louisville courier journal," you wrote an op-ed.

saying -- guest: like i think a lot of my colleagues, we tend to be affected by inertia. over the last six years, even though there has been a number of increase in tragic violence, weekend to continue or maintain the drum beat. last week i decided i need to keep speaking out and we all do because the frequency of these events has increased. the american people want us to do something them back before i spoke out on monday morning, we already have hundreds of phone calls and e-mails over the weekend saying please take action. i think we need to keep talking

about it. in my district, i am surrounded by a lot of the nra supporters. in many cases -- i have an 'f' rating. this is not a change of heart for me. the louisville media market of fax a lot of kentucky. they and not hearing the other side of this case. host: you represent a very urban area? tesco i have nothing outside the city limits of louisville -- calleguest: i have nothing outse the city limits of louisville. as a kid, i went to summer camp and got my certificate of sharpshooting. i always thought guns or something the good guys used to

ward off the bad guys bending most frequently, guns are used -- when they are in society, they are used by bad guys. i have always been afraid of them. i live in a community where there are more people who are afraid of them because they have direct contact with them on an almost daily basis. that fear i think gives me a right to be free to go to a grocery, theater, or a mall without having to carry a gun to protect myself. host: if you were in a different district in kentucky, with your position be a political death wish in a sense? guest: there is a good chance it would be.

my colleague who lost this year represented the lexington area and always felt without a rating from the nra, he could not survive. he fel ttha tway and i suspect many of the other districts in kentucky would be a problem. host: how did you view the second amendment? what changes would you like to see? guest: some of these things appear to be common sense and no-brainers and even things that the nra would support like expanded background checks. limitation on the capacity of magazines which serve no legitimate defense or sporting purpose. and i would like to see assault weapons ban supported. the congress has another role beyond legislating, and that is

to provide oversight over gun laws and their effectiveness. we have plenty of laws about guns. we do not in force them. i checked with one member of the judiciary committee in the house and she said in her 18 years there has never been a hearing on gun laws and how effective they are spending it goes beyond congress, too, because so much of the dunlop activity is at the state level. that is why it is important for us to speak out because of the proliferation of laws and all the things making a statement to the country that is is -- that it is ok for us to have a wild west atmosphere. host: do you think there will be -- there has been legislation

proposed, but do you think there will be hearings or votes or a possibility of legislation being passed? guest: definitely. this is very different right now. i think what you have seen -- sportingou saw dick's goods say they are not going to sporting rifles. when money no longer tromps policy, you know things are different. also, the nra taking a different position than they have historically. i am intrigued what they will say tomorrow. thank goodness they want to be a part of the solution. if they agree to some reasonable regulations on guns, i think they can move the country so far forward bending i

am really excited about that possibility. host: you are currently serving in your third term, just reelected to your first term. congressman yarmuth is our guest for the next 30 minutes or so. the phone numbers are up on your screen. we're going to begin with nate from washington, d.c., on the republican line. caller: good morning. i am serving military members stationed in the d.c. area and i own half a dozen fire arms that i am not able to keep my home because of the gun laws. first, i can think of three reasons for gun ownership them . sport, personal protection, and

then corporate protection which includes balancing government power. to me, they are all legitimate reasons. the second thing i would like to say is you cannot completely prevent violent incidents no matter what laws you instate. the question is, do you want to ban all weapons? guest: i do not take issue with any of the things you said in your premise. i think the issue of corporate defense is something tha tto me is illogical. that is what america is about. i do not want to ban gun ownership. thank you for your service as well. i think you phrased it perfectly. i think there are legitimate

reasons for owning guns. i used to enjoy as a kid shooting a gun. i know a lot of people who hunt. kentucky is one of the most intensive hunting states in this country. i have many friends who so this is a question of balance. there are two things, reasonable regulations will minimize or reduce the opportunity for some violent events. we know that for fact. second, they make a statement that certain things in the culture are not acceptable. we don't need military-style weapons on the streets of this country. no law is going to prevent every assault weapons from being out in society, but it makes a statement. that is important to do.

host: according to the atf, 130,000 licensed firearms dealers as of august 1 in the united states. congressman yarmuth, have you ever got around your district to see how many gun shops there are, how many places people can purchase? guest: i have never made a concerted effort to count them, but i am very much aware of those and aware of the advertising for gun shows and trademarts and all the things that allow for an expansion of gun ownership without any security attached to them, any background checks whatsoever. the world is full of opportunities to buy guns. host: a tweet --

guest: nobody is going after anyone's guns. what we are trying to do is to provide in ways the government can reasonable regulations so that we can keep guns out of bands of the wrong people. every responsible gun owner wants the same thing. we eliminate or at least reduce the number of weapons that have no defense of purpose and are only used to damage in humans or others. host: over the last week or so you have been seen on the news. have you talked to either of your senators about your position? guest: i have not. mitch and i go back over 40 years.

we used to be political allies. i was a republican in 1985. i am very aware of where senator paul has been. he has a very strong libertarian philosophy and is against any further restrictions on gun ownership. i think senator mcconnell's public statements seem to be reserving judgment. i'm sure that people around the country, whether they are presenting kentucky or elsewhere, are getting similar responses from their constituents. most of the polls are showing that over 60% of the people now think it is important for some reasonable regulations on gun ownership. i think everybody who has been a strong opponent of gun regulation has now -- most everybody is taking a reserved position, because they are getting the same kind of feedback that i am. host: fred is a democrat in

pennsylvania. caller: hi. what i would like to say as i grew up in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's. there was act. you could not have an automatic weapon or a tommy gun or a sawed-off shotgun, or you went to prison or there was a large fine. i think the fine was $5,000 for $10,000 and five years in prison. nobody ever complained about that. one older man could hunt with a semi-automatic rifle, but that was because he only had one arm. we lived with that for years until all the movies started in the 1970's and 1980's. the high-powered guns came out in magnum 44 and all that and then everybody started wanting them. but everybody got along without them before that. that's all i have to say. guest: thank you for that, fred. we fail to overlook the

advancements in technology panda their accessibility, things that normally would have been available only to the military, because they cost a lot more and are now much more affordable for everyday citizens and the firepower of these weapons is dramatically increased. we do need to move with the times. some of these weapons, as we saw last friday, have absolutely no purpose other than to do mass damage. host: adam on our independent line in pennsylvania. caller: thanks for having me. you keep saying there is no place for these other guns, shooting assault weapons. i go back to your washington, d.c. court door, the main thing is to protect us from the government.

and the people that believe our government is infallible. you talked about the government producing a culture of nonviolence, but look how it has its hands in the cookie jar with fast and furious involved in the killing of thousands of people in mexico. or he was dropping bombs on innocent people. there's this hypocrisy. many people see that out there. we need to protect ourselves. yes, there are wacky people out there and crazy people and they're always has been and always will be. but we need to also protect ourselves. host: all right. guest: thank you for that. you raised some valid points. everything we do in this

country today is complicated and represents a balancing of interests. that is what is important that we do now is try to balance the interests. there are no absolutes. the question of hearing your government, this government, rightly or wrongly, spends 45% of all worlds expense on defense. anybody who thinks they can arm themselves in a way that if the government for some reason came after them, but they would have any chance, is not logical. i would say people who are stocking up are wasting a lot of money. this is an irrational fear. the government is not going to come into your home for any particular reason. anybody who thinks they can stand up to a government force is dreaming.

you are right -- it is your right to have them. as long as you secure them. that's fine. i respect your right to do that. but we cannot have a government making the statement that it's ok to have basically killing machines out in public. host: representative tim murphy and representative grace napolitano on the program this week talking about the mental health aspects. do you see that getting attention in the 113th? guest: i would hope so. now there's more focus and attention to the fact that a lot of people who perpetrate these tragedies are mentally unstable. so we have cut back significantly our access to mental health in my state and throughout the country as well. we have to focus on that, and

investments and that attention will pay themselves back over many times. it is a crisis in that state right now. i'm glad we are talking about it. what the president said, setting up a more comprehensive approach to this, is really important, because it involves our education system, our school counselors, and so many other things, and a look at the entertainment industry. --t: a tweete that my'm not aware state has done that yet. host: do you find them to be effective? guest: it's almost a needle in a haystack. actually, historically, our local police department has done this from time to time. several hundred weapons have come in. you can always make the argument

that you prevent one or two deaths, it is worth it. that's probably perspective you have to take on a buyback programs. host: you are also a member of the budget committee. the fiscal cliff negotiations are going on right now. the plan b is coming up for vote today, a couple different votes. what is your view of what the speaker has proposed? guest: from what i understand, the recommendation to restore the clinton error rates is fine. the $250,000 threshold that the president has suggested seems to me to be a little low. i recommended at one point going to about $400,000, which is the top 1% of income earners in the country. that seems to me to make sense.

$1 million is fine as well. you still capture a lot of revenue for deficit reduction. on the tax side, we are coming together to a reasonable solution. on the spending side, it's very difficult. i was surprised to see him put in the sequester back on the table. the sequester been the across- the-board cuts of 9%, including the defense budget. i think that is terribly damaging in the short term. right now with a fragile economy, you cannot put that much money out of the economy. i look. at my look i of seven employers in my district all depending significantly on federal spending. those are private sector jobs. humana is based. in my based 3% of its business is administering government health programs. when you start taking those kind of spending cuts -- i understand medicate is off the table. ups as a $1 billion contract

with the federal government. ups is based in my district. the other health-care companies, university of louisville, pell grants and research dollars, all those things are private sector jobs that are affected when government spending cuts. i know that we do need to get a handle on federal spending. now is not the right time to make significant cuts in federal spending. you can those once the economy gets on a stronger footing and employment decks to a much stronger level. -- you can backload those. changing cpi on social security, it's dangerous. 60% of the country or more are seniors or lie on their income from social security. -- who rely on their income

from social security. people living on $20,000 or less. if there is a way to change the way to calculate that, save money, and not impact the lower income seniors, that might be something to consider. but not in a crisis mode like we are doing now. not without some pretty solid analysis and not without letting the american people know how it will affect them. that's the danger of doing pretty complex negotiations behind closed doors up against a deadline. i think we ought to get the tax problem off the table. we don't want people's taxes to go up on january 1. we can deal with it in a more thoughtful way. host: do you see, is being in session this week? guest: i don't think so. we probably will get these votes out of the way today on the tax rate, go home tomorrow, and then come back after christmas. that's my guess.

everybody on the hills as we don't know. that's where we are. host: pat from louisville on our republican line. caller: good morning, congressman. what really makes me outraged is when something happens with the shooting and we run out and say, gun law. we don't enforce bans on the boo -- we don't enforce laws on the books. right now it's kind of iffy how they are done. when 200 plus guns went to mexico without the

mexican government agreeing, those assault rifles will be back here in the united states and they will be killing citizens here in the united states. -- 2000 plus guns. it makes me very angry that people in congress, not partisan at all, but just wanting to know why it 2000 guns went to mexico. host: the congressman is a member of the oversight and government reform committee. guest: we held hearings on the oversight committee. i think the congress is very concerned about that program, but we finally concluded after looking at it pretty closely

that it was pretty much some rogue agents in the atf. as soon as anybody of them knew that the program had been instituted, it was discontinued. it was certainly a horrible thing to do. your analysis of it is absolutely correct. your point about the gun laws that we have, congress has never done over the last 20 years any oversight asked to whether the gun laws that are on the books now are being enforced, whether they are being enforced effectively enough, whether are ways we could change them to make them more effective. so i think that is one important thing congress should do beyond considering new legislation, is to actually analyze what we have on the books and whether it's doing any good. i appreciate the. point erased host: philip is on our democrat line from pennsylvania.

caller: the most important part of a lot you could pass would be the magazine capacity. it is true that any firearm can become an assault weapon once you incorporate a high-capacity magazine. the first assault rifle ban created a demand for assault rifles, because they became desirable because they were banned. manufacturers being clever, will always get around your definition. even now you can buy high- capacity magazines for hunting rifles and turn them into a devastating tool. if you restrict all magazines, then it does not really matter what weapon or rifle you put the magazine into. the logic of trying to define

one weapon versus another will always get defeated with clever manufacturers. guest: you raised a great point, pat. the last assault weapons ban was vulnerable to that kind of strategy. if we try to another assault weapons ban, after be much more -- more careful about how we drafted that. the gun supporters in congress that i have spoken with, they agree with you that the most important thing we do is put restrictions on the high- capacity magazines. that is coming from strong supporters. i think the background check provision is also very important. i appreciate your call. that's probably going to be the first piece of legislation you will see. host: to build on what the caller had to say, having state- by-state or area by area or city by city laws, is that not

effective when it comes to trying to prevent what you are? hoping are? guest: absolutely. i think i saw earlier a news story, that 39% of the murders in connecticut have been committed with guns from out of state. so that is an issue. we know how things of been in virginia with gun shows and many states of turned up all over the east coast committing crimes. the interest rate problem is significant. that's why the federal government has to play a role. host: a tweet -- guest: i think that's not completely right. the reason i say that is the sequester requires a 9% across- the-board cut in every

category with the exception of medicare, medicaid, social security, interest on the debt. medicare is limited to 2% cut. the cuts in the defense department to go into a base spending. he may be right in terms of the non-defense part of it. i'm not on the appropriations committee. i don't know exactly how those would fall. at to a certain extent he's right, but most of the cuts are in projected spending. guest: there is a tax increase that is part of the affordable care act that affects people whose incomes are over to a

hundred $50,000. -- $250,000. if someone's making $500,000 in their job right now as their salary, they're not going to pay goingre -- they're not to pay this extra tax as part of the affordable care act. if they're making capital gains or dividend income or interest income that's over the $250,000, they will pay an additional pre 0.8%. that is actually just applying the medicare tax to income that has before now not been taxed for medicare. if you make $100,000 in dividend interest, you pay no social security on that and no medicare tax. those incomes should have to be

paid for in the affordable care. host: because there are often strong opinion on the guns issue, have you felt threatened at all since being very public about your position? guest: no, i have not. the response we have gotten, 98% have been positive. there's been a lot of response. i think all of us in this line of work live with the notion that there is some kind of threat out there, but i have not felt an increased threat since then. a classmate of mine, a very good friend, made us all much more aware of the threats out there, gabby giffords, what happened to her. host: when she was shot two

years ago, did any changes in law occur after that assassination attempt? guest: nothing. i think part of it was that the focus was on someone -- we understand public officials will be vulnerable. even though this guy was crazy, jared loughner, it was obvious, that's not something legislation can really handle. it was some talk of more extensive background checks, but nothing happened at all. that was one of those where the news cycle ran out and people stopped talking. that's why i think we need to make sure we continue to talk about this. host: an independent in mcalester, oklahoma, alan. caller: hello. i have a couple questions for the congressman. can you tell me what a.r. stands

for and then ar15? host: why do you ask? guest: i have no idea. caller: armalight. it was the first arms company to develop the standard, the style, a model. and most people think it means assault rifle, but it is actually armalight. host: what is your point? caller: i just wondered if he knew what it was. a couple of your people have mentioned a 44 mag is something that is not needed. try taking a walk in the alaska wilderness and tell a grizzly bear that that the 44 is not

needed. the three weapons were shown that this maniac had was a glock,ter , a high-end and a high-end sig sauer. anybody should have those under lock and key. and if they are in a state that has concealed carry, like here in oklahoma we have open carry, which i think is ridiculous. i am a correctional officer at and have been one for 20 years. i don't want a bad guy to know i have a weapon on me. i want to be able to protect the people that are in. whatever in like if i would've been there when gabrielle giffords was shot, it would not have been a little old lady to take the guy down. i would've been one of the first people sending sead his way --

lead his way. guest: thank you for calling. host: a tweet -- guest: i have no idea. if senator mcconnell comes on the show, maybe he will have an answer. host: does it help you as a congressman to have the republican leader from your state in the senate? guest: i don't think it is made any difference of our. there have been a couple of instances in which we have worked together to fund projects, or i think it's been helpful to have him in that position. beyond that, are so far apart on policy questions that there's nothing i would want his help

from and vice versa. host: as that difference in policy, but you go back 40 years, do you have a personal friendship with senator mcconnell? guest: we are very simple. we're both university of local sports fans. -- university of louisville. we end up flying home together sometimes. i am sorry that the media world out there, the cable world, has created an impression that we are at each other's throats and don't like each other. that's the furthest thing from the truth. host: bob in silver spring, maryland, republican. caller: how are ya? i don't like it when the democrats all ask for gun restrictions in view of the tragedy. what about restrictions on the first amendment? do you want a balanced approach?

should we restrict violent movies and video games by law? maybe in a movie, only three people can get shot, what do you think of that? guest: i am a former journalist. i have great respect for the first amendment and of the right to expression. we want to promote creativity and promote restrictit, so i would not advocate any legislative controls on content. -- we want to promote creativity, not to restrict it. we are talking about the need for parents to be responsible in what they allow their impressionable children to use or to seek. beyond that, i don't see we have much of our role. host: our last call comes from lamont in mansfield, ohio, a

democrat. caller: how are you doing? i have more of a comment than a question. i think the problem with the guns does not act to do with legislation or mental check ups. it has more to do with the racism in america. that is the issue and no one wants to talk about. host: very quickly, turn down the volume of your tv and just talk to your telephone and tell us why you could be a racist issue. caller: because it is all tied with these heavy weapons and all that. that's not just be used if you think somebody might break in your house or someone might attack your family or any kind. of kind that is more personal thing you are trying to protect everything you believe you are entitled to

in this country. you don't want to give it up. if you see this magazine that holds even more rounds -- i would like to ask the gentlemen, how many militias are registered in kentucky? how many military-style militias are registered in his home state? nobody wants to talk about this. there's a reason america is out in the world as a leader of gun violence, because nobody talks about racism behind why people buy these dangerous weapons. it's not just because the average -- host: we have athe point. guest: i don't know how many militias there are in kentucky. militias have been somewhat responsible for creating this anti-government sentiment and almost revolutionary spirit. as a federal politician and

official, my job is to do what i happen to protect my citizens. that's what we are trying to work for, policies at the federal level that are reasonable, but don't restrict rights, but also balance the rights of individuals who don't want to have the need to carry a gun everywhere to protect themselves. again, everything is subtle and these are balancing the interests we are trying to accommodate. that's what i'm trying to do. host: we have been talking with representative john yarmuth, a democrat of kentucky. thanks for being here. guest: my pleasure spirit host: i have representative tim huelskamp, next, of kansas. we will talk about the same issues with him. finally, david ingram will be our guest about some of the options president obama may have when it comes to changing the gun laws. we will be right back after this

news update from c-span radio. >> its 8:31 eastern time. president vladimir putin of russia has had a news conference and says a draft bill banning u.s. adoptions of russian children is a legitimate response to a new u.s. law that calls for sanctions on russians deemed to be human rights violators. but he has not committed to signing it. he said while the majority of americans to adopt russian children are "kind and honorable," protection for abuse of victims is insufficient. the bill faces more steps before it can reach the president of russia for this signature. three senators have written to the head of sony pictures, criticizing the movie "zero dark thirty" as grossly inadequate and misleading. it suggests that torture produced the tip that led to bin laden. the senate intelligence committee chairman dianne

feinstein and and others say the summit president has an obligation to say that portrait in the hunt for bin laden was a fiction and not based on fact. the lawmakers say the cia detainee who provided significant information about bin laden did so before any harsh interrogation. congress is hearing about a state department report on the september 11 attacks on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya, today. in the senate and house foreign relations committee is, they're holding hearings on the report. you can hear the senate hearing on that issue right after today's washington journal on c- span radio. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> our first experience was to in a different way than any other family. after dad was sworn in, we took a picture behind the oval office desk.

that night we did not get to move into the white house, because nixon had left so unexpectedly. they left their daughters and sons a lot to pack all of their clothing and belongings. it took seven or eight days. we had to go back to our little house in alexandria, virginia, in suburbia. the neighborhood was surrounded by secret service. we had been living there since that was vice president. that night, mom was cooking dinner. [laughter] we were sitting around the dinner table. she looks over at my dad and says, something's wrong here. you just became president of the united states and i am still cooking. >> steve ford and other first children on growing up in the white house, part of a point

guard days on american history tv, right through christmas day, on c-span3. [video clip] >> i don't want to spoil the book for you, so let me just say that the year began with the american republic in grave danger. the union armies were struggling to grow virtually overnight from a few thousand men scattered across t scattered continentso more than half a million. the inexperienced officers taking command of these raw volunteers and they were stymied by the sheer size of the breakaway confederate states of america, which covered a stake larger than the entire european territory conquered by napoleon. closest advisers was secretary of state william henry stewart. he said that even smart people fail to see the difficulty it of the union's task.

they did not apprehend the vast extent of the rebellion. military operation to be successful, it must be on a scale practically unknown in the art of war. >> ace train the federal government and the union forces. this is on 1862 and abraham lincoln's rise to greatness on monday at 8:30 p.m., this weekend and right through days. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is a republican of kansas just reelected to serve in his western kansas district. representative tim huelskamp. most of our talk this morning has been on newtown and potential changes to a gun laws. before we move into the fiscal issues, what is your take on the current mood in the country and the potential mood in congress

on changing the gun laws? guest: peter, it's a tragic situation. i have a for our children 17 and under, including a 6-year-old -- four children. so it's pretty close to home. the mood i see in congress, i hope that we don't move in haste and do things we might regret. i hope we let folks mourn and we will look at that. i think it's an individual problem. we have mental illness issues tied into this that are separate, but do impact the situation, obviously. most of my constituents, i don't think i have had anyone to call into my office to say that we should get changes in federal gun laws. host: what is your rating? guest: i have a 100% rating.

and i'm a gun owner. i have an 11-year-old and 6- year-old son. we went hunting during pheasant season. it's important that parents train their children in their use and to respect and understand the use of guns if you are going to happen in the home. host: the so-called plan b coming up 4 vote today on the house floor. guest: seems like plan b has become plan c or d, depending on how you look at it, because it was severely amended. i've not seen the final details. an earlier bill that passed the house, the sequester replacement act. here's the issue that bothers me the most in the bill, two things. first, is clearly a tax increase. over the weekend, speaker john boehner offered a tax increase. to the increase it was not even discussed in

the republican conference prior to that offer to the president. this is affirming that position. it is economically a foolish thing to do. with this tax increase in the bill, it will raise taxes on 41% of all small business in comes. it will cost jobs. here we are talking about how to get the economy growing again and create jobs and we want an entrepreneur is to succeed. this would punish "mompreneuer", particularly small businessmen and women, who are the backbone. of the backbone host: grover norquist came out in support of plan b. guest: arts i believe he said it was not a violation of the tax pledge. host: does that give cover? to conservatives guest: i do know grover and i will admit publicly that i consider him a friend. i made a pledge to 700,000

kansans. i don't want to raise their taxes. this tax increase will impact our small businesses, which are important to my constituency. it's a point of leotard to those people that maybe have 25 employees, with the tax increases proposed in this bill. john boehner'sb fiscal cliff plan b -- representative huelscamp, for close watchers of congress, they understand you have had a little bit of upper forceful with the speaker. guest: i think what has happened in my case, for people not aware, i was removed from two committees, and president of

action, and three of my colleagues were stripped of their committees as well. i don't believe any of us received any advance notice. it is big boy politics up here. most americans, it looks vindictive, because it was based on the way we voted. there was a secret scorecard involved. the steering committee of about 30 republicans went into closed- door meeting with no notice to me. they have not even told me what committees i will be on in the next year. a committee this is not necessarily a bad thing for few people. in this case, i'm a next- generation farmer, someone from kansas of been on agriculture committee 101 years. to have the speaker and other gop leaders punish me for my conservative vote and punish my constituents is what most of my constituents are very. upset very host: the speaker has said, as has been made clear, there's no scorecard or any other single

criteria used to determine committee assignments. the steering committee, which he heads, is a deliberative body that reviews all appropriate information." to build on that, i'm sure you saw the article in "politico" hole factor.he a- they said that you a couple other members were difficult to work with. guest: apparently, that is a rumor being spread by a colleague of mine. it is kind of embarrassing. i have a 6-year-old and this is the kind of language we are not allowed to use in the home and members of congress, who claim to represent their constituents, not only going behind closed doors but engaging in name- calling. we have serious problems facing our country. to punish folks willing to speak i am conservative.

i have been outspoken. but i don't think it's time for members of congress to sit down and be told what to do. people in both parties have created problems not just in the last three years - it's not president obama's fault alone. americans should have a say. people should voice their opinions. if folks are worried if someone speaks out too much, i say welcome to reality. american people are upset with the debt. we look closely at the washington speak and the speaker's statement. it was a scorecard. they calmly asked, please present the scorecards -- they will not do it. if you are conservative and voted for conservative principals -- and i thought

that was the way republicans generally leaned, you were graded down on that score card. i've been very active member on the budget and agriculture committee. i'm a federation farmer. the speaker and other leaders kicking folks off the committee, that looks pretty silly. i have a ph.d. in agricultural policy. we will see what happens. i am not going to be silent and i will not be intimidated. i did a poll of my constituents. 90% say to keep doing what i'm doing. they say keethat is what we sent you for, that you are to work for kansans. i go home every weekend and it's not an easy trek. this job is not for fun, it is serious. we have to address the problems facing this country that will impact my children eventually.

host: if a compromise between the president and congress and the senate and house does not occur on january 1, are you ready to go over the fiscal cliff? guest: if that's what happens in this town, we will have to face that. many reporters have asked the question, who is going to get blamed? i don't care about blame. is who will be punished for a bad policy. the fiscal cliff was created by a series of bad deals starting two years ago in the august 2011 debt deal. the folks that voted for that created a situation. the question about sequester was created by an agreement between the president and majority leader and speaker of the house. i claim no credit for that deal, but we are trying to work through that. my personal goal is to prevent a massive tax increase that will hurt the economy. host: tim huelskamp is our

guest, republican of kansas. first call from connecticut on the republican line,. with, caller: good morning. i have a comment. first, on the fiscal cliff, obama keeps this class warfare going with his 98% and 2%. what i would like to say is the two% probably use fewer government services than anybody else, whereas the nine disparate 90% probably use most of the government services. why should the to% who don't use the services paid for the 95% who do? on the arms control thing, i would like to point out that the nra and those opposed to the nra never bring up the point of

the second amendment. when it was written, there was no such thing as an automatic or even a semi-automatic weapon. the law has to be brought up-to- date. i would like to hear you answer to both of those problems. thank you. guest: charles, i appreciate those questions. guns and weapons of choice have changed throughout the years and our laws have changed as well. the state of connecticut had the type of gun laws that have been proposed and they did not work. at the end of the day, is an individual person's problem. changing laws does not necessarily change hearts. it's a cultural problem as well. that's why i don't think we need to change the laws. we need to look at an issue of the coarsening of society where violence has become acceptable in many avenues. turning on the television many

nights to see that. the first question was about the top 2% and class warfare and what has gone on. 70% of americans take a more from washington than they give. here we are. as a republican, it says to me that with the vote today and with the offer from the speaker, we have given into the president. that we have to go after a so- called rich. 41% of small business income will be taxed at. a higher at -- tax at a higher rate. these are not people like warren buffett. we estimate 200,000 jobs to 700,000 jobs could be lost as a result of these tax increases. that does not help anyone. we need to be growing jobs and not losing them. host: deborah is a democrat in missouri -- beverly.

caller: mary christmas. host: mary christmas -- merry christmas to you. caller: i have two questions. an analogy and then a question. my question is on the t adjustmentso th to the seniors - of-living is going to be down. my question, the federal employees and politicians get a cost-of-living. yet there's is always higher than the old people's. why is it not the same? i am sure it will take this gentleman 10 minutes to answer the question. my analogy is that charlie

brown, president obama, the fiscal cliff football is always being yanked out from him by the nasty republicans in the house and senate. is it not time for you to let the american people have a touchdown? where is the jobs bill? you keep talking about jobs. i have not heard -- i watched the news all the time and i have nine republicans present any jobs bill. host: beverly, we've got a lot on the table. we will get an answer from representative huelscamp. guest: thanks for your question. it is illegal to say merry christmas in congress, but i will say so anyway.

most americans, and particularly in kansas, the football,,lucy holds is usually spending cuts. i'm afraid we will take a swing at the fiscal cliff and we will not make any spending cuts. if we have a spending problem in washington and not a revenue problem. republicans will be asked to talk about revenue. at the end of the day, unless we get our spending under control, we will never get our deposition under control and we are never going to get our debt under control. that's the facts of the matter. but you are right on jobs. what i believe that most americans believe is that it's not washington that creates jobs. actually get in the way. small businessmen and women being harmed by the tax increases are the ones who create most of the jobs in a growing economy.

guest: that came up in my campaign a couple years ago. i think every candidate running for office that year said i'm not going to washington to get along, i'm going there to stand up for principles. to me and most of my constituents, that is what is wrong with washington. we did not come here to necessarily vote as a republican. i have my conservative principals. oftentimes republicans don't stand for those and oftentimes democrats don't. if enough members of congress say we will solve this problem and work together, but we need to go off our partisan leanings out the window and insider leanings and say what are we going to do to get this job done. everybody can agree in washington we have failed at solving this problem. 16.3 trillion debt. we have overspent $292 billion in the first month of the fiscal year and we are kicking people off committees who actually

bring that to the attention of our leadership and the president of the united states. host: so that will actually exists in congress, golan get along? guest: i think it does. when you go on the overseas trips. look at our founders. when you walk up those steps, they are worn out from thousands and thousands of members of congress. if you say i will give you the right committee, i will vote the way they want me to. right now people are saying we want you to do something serious and keep putting -- and not keeping problems off until the future. host: 70 is an independent. -- cindy. theer: we don't go to

movies anymore, my husband and i. we rent movies for a dollar from redbox and we sit at home and watch them. we limit ourselves to hamburger helper. i have medical costs that i cannot even read my deductible. i need surgery. you all don't care about the middle class anymore. when i see you all bickering like little kids up there and not thinking about us anymore, it upsets me. it really does. [lady crying] i would like to see you all live the way we do. we have to do without and the rich do not. i don't think you all need your free insurance. and i think you all need to start cutting like we have to. host: thank you, cindy. guest: cindy, i appreciate your

comments and i'm sorry for that situation. many folks in washington have never been through the situation you've talked about. what do we do about it? we can sit up here in washington and act like we are helping you by creating new programs, by spending more money. at the end of the day, this nation is bankrupt. what we need is to create growth and opportunity. we need to make certain your husband has more hours to work rather than less. what washington d.c. does best is spend money. i'm afraid that the taxes on the rich, which sounds really good -- somebody the other day said i define rich as somebody making more than i do. at the end of the day, small businessmen and women, that will hurt them. what hurts me most is the fact that when we make bad policies in washington, people their jobs.

in an average economic recovery, we would have 10 million more jobs out there for american families. washington has failed. i think it's because we are trying to manage everything from. big government from i will keep struggling and pushing forward. of congress don't get free health care. they get free subsidies. that's not fair. guest: the membership of the caucus, and i'm a member, is fairly small. democrats are a minority in congress as well. they pushed their philosophy as well. we call that a representative republic in action. it is my job not to work for any particular party or any other member of congress.

700,000 kansans in the last few years, we have had town halls and what they told me without a doubt, the same message every time, balance the budget, reduce spending, roll back regulations, and get out of our way. they are tired of washington and being told what to do. they recognize they think they can do a better job than washington ever did. host: 15 minutes left with our guests, representative tim huelskamp from kansas. now we have our guest calling in from the republican line, amanda, in mississippi. caller: how are you doing? i want to talk about the fiscal cliff, the gun control, or what have you. host: we are listening. caller: ok. as there is such a verdicbage more positive verbage coming

across the media, it would be a wonderful thing to hear. we start out hearing about the fiscal cliff. that in itself sounds horrible. how many times have i heard fiscal cliff from across my flat screen? and all of a sudden we have the shooting and everyone is jumping on the bandwagon -- and rightfully so -- but it is just one thing after the other. it's just not a good atmosphere, not a positive atmosphere for any americans to have to put up with. guest: i agree. it is a real down spirit across america with this massive debt and a seemingly out of control government, and these violent shootings going on. i must admit, i think we should pray for the future of our country and pray for our leaders. there have been times when

american people really pulled together to improve our country. so i encourage you to do that in your community. most improvement don't come out of washington. it is locally with your friends and neighbors and church and community. there's a limit of what washington can do, but they can do a lot of bad. we could have the single biggest tax increase in american history. here we are the last two weeks of the year and nothing seems to be happening. host: now to sue, a democrat in wisconsin. caller: i worked for over 30 years and only had two small and few children. companies pay $8 an hour and wonder why people are poor. if they did not have to meet behind closed doors and have

lobbyists and they probably don't even know what they are voting on half the time. we have probably 100,000 laws. i think the government has everything to do with it. i think that they can afford to have an operation. i am tired of things going on behind closed doors and kicking the can down the road. thank you very much. guest: appreciate those comments. i hear that a lot as well, what are they doing behind closed doors? i think the american idealist in the system is to have to know how your member is voting. it seems to be the temptation far too often that if they want the deal they will go behind the doors and shove them. the republicans and democrats said they would open it up and be more transparent. i guarantee you, as we speak, they are meeting behind closed doors, doing things i should --

i think should be an open and more transparent. host: our guest before you came on was john yarmouth. he said the four largest dependence -- for large companies are very dependent on the government money. what about in your district? how dependent are your farmers and ranchers and whatever else might be out there on the federal government? guest: lot of farm and ranch- based. as i mentioned earlier, 70 percent of americans receive more from washington than they give. we are created a growing dependency, a growing

entitlement state. i think the budget shows that. one thing that has been talked about is the sequestered. when we look at the sequester, it is budget cuts. what we are being asked to vote on the floor would undo budget cuts. when did republicans decide budget cuts were a bad idea. they have become that in washington. they were agreed to in august, 2011. we will vote to undo the cuts that were agreed to. most americans look at that and say it is more of the same. that has been going on for decades. i come from kansas. as we talk about off the air, home of eisenhower. when eisenhower was president, that was the last year washington actually cut the budget from year to year. that is the last time. frankly, we're getting more government we can afford to pay for.

host: one of the things that will go up is the state cut. it is the million-dollar range pretty standard where you come from? guest: that is very small because of the high cost but for those that want to pass on the ranch, a 55% tax would go into effect with the million-dollar exempt tax. most farmers and ranchers would have to be broken up. this is very expensive. there is not a great return on it either. try to make it to pass on to their sons.

most of these ranches and farms that have been in families for generations will be broken up as a result. , law vicky tweets in says members of congress cannot say merry christmas? that kind of information needs to stop. guest: absolutely. there is an office in the u.s. capitol the reviews every piece of mail we put out. since 1970, i believe it is, members of congress are not permitted to say merry christmas. i was joking about saying that individually, but they say you cannot even say happy holidays. as a freshman we put out our purse -- first piece of mail, and at the end we put out very christmas. they came back to us to say you cannot say that, because it is unethical and against the law. my constituents think that is

silly. i went ahead and said it anyway. host: next call comes from richard and lake placid, florida. independent. caller: representative, it appears to me that the leader will sell us out again. he is going to agree to more taxes, more spending and no cuts. to fix the economy, what we really need to do is to cut taxes, cut spending, cut the size of government, create an atmosphere where small business can flourish, prosper, which is 90% of the growth and the economy that comes from the small business sector. it does not look like that is when to happen. one quick thing on gun control. how does the president and the

white house protect his family and the white house from a tax? it is with armed guards, secret agents. when his daughters are on vacation, he sent 60 secret service agents with them armed. we should protect our family, children, loved ones and our possessions just like the banks protect their money. we should have this appeasement and non-violence policy and no guns policy they have in these areas, they are just targets for the crazies. people who want to attack and kill the innocent. i appreciate that, especially the comments on small business. i have shared the fears that the end of the day washington, d.c., both parties will stay up to say we have a grand agreements will

put off this in the future and will cost american jobs. we will look to see what happens. i am a strong supporter of the right to conceal carry. study after study has shown that actually reduces crime. i will continue to support those. i think the federal role should not be changed. what we need is a change in society in which violence is not expected or not hyped up in hollywood. instead that we expect the value of individual life. take a wild and wonderful treat and, if you guys have not done of darn thing for true small businesses since i cannot remember when. do not hide behind us to propagandize. guest: i cannot remember when we

done something great for small businesses access for the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. what bothers me in this town is it seems like you have to have lobbyists to get anything done. we have an entire tax code that was written by lobbyists over the small years. -- was written by lobbyists over the years. american packaging in hutchinson, kan., i see the owner on sunday. he does not have a lobbyist of here, except for me. i will not be quiet about what he needs and others. that is the way we grow the economy. it is the small businesses that create jobs, not the warren buffett's of the world. host: must be something about you a john boehner ticket to the curve. -- if john boehner kicked you to

the curb. caller: i do run a small business. it seems to me we would even have to consider borrowing money from china or anywhere else, why we should even have that as an option. we're the richest country in the world. and also won three note on the gun laws issue. i do not see how they can target any particular weapon. it is worse than any combat- loading weapon. you can almost do that as fast as you can pull the trigger also. not a matter how many rounds you can shoot, but any sane person -- insane person getting hold of anything. guest: the reality of using

guns or whatever illegal purpose of its lost in washington and the politics. we will have to do something, a press release and a press conference. there is a second amendment. they believe the supreme court has recognized the individual rights in a narrow decision. one thing i want to go back to, and what i hear from folks like yourself and others is the mass of new regulations coming out. instead of helping, we are hindering folks. practically on the provisions of obama care and how that is impacting a growing -- actually a sluggish economy going in the wrong direction. you raise a great question about borrowing money. you are the greatest country in the world and have to fund 81% based on borrowed money.

at the end of the day we will find folks will not loaned us the money. early next year is the possible downgrade by the credit rating, and that will have major repercussions. an economy we might never recover from hostm. host: last call comes from george. caller: hello? one is on weapons. during the vietnam war they had the m14. [inaudible] fire more rounds than a typical round. also rifles on the internet for

$7,000. host: do you want to make another comment? caller: i am a senior citizen. that is it. guest: thank you. you raise a wonderful point here about senior citizens and retirees and the financial problems we face right now are only going to get worse. medicare will have problems surviving. social security will as well. we have about 30 million americans that are going to turn 65 in the next 20 years. there's no money in this also

security fund and medicare trust fund. we have to reform those programs if we would like them to survive. host: today, what will happen on the house floor? how are you going to vote? guest: as i understand, late last night plan b was amended because it could not pass the house. i've been strongly opposed to that because of the tax increase on millionaires. apparently they have added on at sequester replacement. i of still going to vote no. a tax increase and pushing cuts is a double negative for republicans. we're missing the point. point is the of the spending problem and should be passing bills that outline what republicans are for, working towards balancing the budget in solving the long-term fiscal problems instead of acquiescing

to tax cuts that the speaker and president have agreed to. host: have you been whipped? what does that phrase mean? guest: i of been kicked off committees. we've been asked if we will vote for this. it changed significantly last month. i presumably will talk about that more hopefully before we vote in the house. host: will we see you speak on the floor of the house? guest: probably not. they have only about an hour. there is usually not much speaking on the floor on big issues. we speak more about the things that do not matter than the things that actually count. that will probably be the case today. caller: since you were kicked off the agricultural and budget committees, have you had a speaker -- a conversation with the majority leader?

guest: they have not even approached me to tell me before or after. i guess that is the way in washington. we wonder why we have these bickering going on. host: tweets in -- our guest has been rep tim huelskamp, republican of kansas. one more segment to go. coming up, david ingram of reuters. the justice department correspondent for that organization. we will cut by the president's -- talk about the president's

options. that is something we will be talking about with him. judge robert more died yesterday. he was 87-years-old. -- judge bork. he has about 65 different videos in the c-span library you can watch. they're all free of charge. just type in his name. interested in seeing the hearings from 1987 or the later appearances in some of our programs you can go to c- span.org, to the video library. you can also go to booktv.org. we taped a program with him a couple of years ago at his home. he was too ill to leave his home at that point. you can go there to watch his ball afterwards program. it will also air this weekend on c-span2. it is a four-day weekend.

with the holiday, for the weekend on both days for those networks. if you want to see him talk about his most -- his book from 2008, you can watch it there. here is a portion of it -- >> the idea following the original understanding of the constitution is not a mechanical idea. you do not think it is come -- some kind of machine and said that as the original understanding. it takes a lot of judgment and research to get there. now we were on the same court. i think we voted when we were together 99% of the time the same way. we did disagree. there was a case against evans and novak. scalia decided the plaintiff had

a good case, and i decided he did not. well, we were both arguing from what we thought were reasonable premise is related to the constitution. that will happen. it is not to be expected. judges, no matter how diligent, no matter how committed will come of the same way every time. they will not. >> you had a discussion in the book that was quite fascinating. wanted to switch things slightly different. the dilemma is the center of a lot of your writing. i am wondering if you can describe that. guest: i picked up that phrase from a political philosopher at yale university. the idea -- the way he phrased it was that we allow majorities

rule does because they are majorities with no better reason. in many cases. but we also wanted protection for minorities some place and cannot allow the majority to decide which freedoms the minority will have. nor can you allow the minorities decide. which means there is a dilemma of the heart of democracy. that dilemma is solved in our dairy by a court that reconciles those claims according to law. that is the solution to the medicine man dilemma. -- macedonia dilemma. host: we want to introduce to to david ingram, the justice department writer for reuters.

even without congress, obama could act to restrict guns is the headline of the article. what could the president do today, tomorrow to change the gun laws? guest: he has a range of options he could consider, in addition to anything he sends to congress to pass a new law. current law gives him several think he could do and gun- control groups have been pushing for him to do for quite some time. these are related to the ability to restrict imports, certain kinds of firearms from overseas. particular fire arms but did not have a sporting purpose, so- called ak47-style guns were restricted by the first president bush in 1989, and the enforcement waned over the years. the other is related to gun sales.

explosives have some leeway about how long they can keep certain records. there has been a push to have them keep records for a lot longer. other things like that the denial of someone of the sale of a fire arm. there are thousands times a year when people try to buy a fire arm but failed a background check that currently exists. not get a firearm. there is a push to have the administration shared that information with other law enforcement and 40authorities, according to what the gun control groups is that while the federal government might not care if someone is denied a gun for failing a background check, that information could be very useful to local law enforcement. host: that information is

currently not shared? guest: right. host: when it comes to imports, why did the first president bush restrict the import of certain guns? guest: a couple of reasons. one is there was a series of shootings at that time, just as there has been recently now. and i think the politics of guns were a little different than they are now, and president bush famously gave up his nra membership, and president reagan supported control measures that in the past 10 years or so would seem the things that would not be passed. host: when it comes to gun sales and keeping the record, what is the effect of that? guest: one example would be if someone was to buy a gun, they go through the background check,

and under federal law this background check has to be done within three days, if for some reason it is not done within three days, the in the sale has to go through. the failure to complete the background check cannot be a reason to deny someone a gun. but the records for that are not kept for very long, and there is pressure for the obama administration to keep the records for at least six months, or in some cases 20 years if the person involved is on a watch list for terrorism. host: so keeping them longer -- guest: law enforcement could go back and look at the records potentially if that person is found to be suspected of another crime or as part of our broader investigation. host: in covering the justice department's, it to you get the

feeling the president may take action on some of these issues? -- do you get the feeling the president may take action on some of these issues? guest: after the shooting when the congressman was shot and nearly killed, the justice department looked at a whole series of things that they could do, including some of these options. their real focus was on improving the background check system as it currently exists. that is something i think the justice department is really focus on improving from their perspective. that only works if all the data relative for background is inside the system. there

this president does not get

coverage. this administration as whole does not get covered with any sense of balance and fairness. the people are not getting accurate information. >> we have your point. guest: it is worth emphasizing if president obama were to take some of these steps, there would be a lot of our rage that the president would be seen as taking the law and who is own hands. -- into his own hands. it is worth saying the president does have existing authority under the wall. no one is suggesting he should or would act outside legal authority, except in the case of a recess appointment. there is a lot of controversy about what power the president really does have to make a recess appointment. there is a court case going on right now about recess

appointments that accuses the president of abusing his authority. we will potentially see your ruling from that next year. host: what the calller -- just to let the calller know, we invited him a specific the based on its article. here is the article that he published on monday, even without congress, obama could act to restrict guns. tomorrow nra press conference. will you be there? have you heard anything about which way -- what they're going to be talking about? >guest: i plan to be there, possibly with other reporters. they have said they want to contribute to the debate. it is a big question for all of us, what exactly they will say.

they have not quite tip their hand yet. host: is it being held in fairfax, at their headquarters or here in washington? guest: they have not said. i am not sure either one of the offices would be able to handle people who want to attend. host: the nra does not very often hold a press conference. guest: i cannot recall one in the four years i have been covering the capitol hill. they do sometimes talk to the press and talk freely but are not known for holding press conferences. host: this article was an "the huffington post" what is the gun owners of america? guest: it is an organization based in virginia. it is not as old as the nra.

it was formed in the late 1970's. it is a little bit of a rival group to the nra. there were formed originally that the idea of the nra was too moderate on firearms. that is still the driving sentiment behind the organization. they criticized the nra for not taking tougher positions say in 2009 when eric holder was nominated to be attorney general, the nra was initially pretty quiet about his nomination before speaking about it. the gun owners of america is no compromise and they call themselves no compromise lobbying group. he has been on tv and in the press. host: he was on this program last saturday morning. thanks for holding. you are on with.

with davidu are on ingram. caller: i want to say we do need gun control. in the past four months in wisconsin we have had a pastor who shoots -- shot his granddaughter who lived with him because he thought she was trying to break into the house. we had a police officer who was ambushed and killed. we had a man and little falls who knew somebody because he had surveillance on cameras, new the teenagers were going to break into his house, so he sat there with a shotgun and ambushed and .illed them here ye host: telling us all the specific incidents, what would you like to see done? what kind of loss?

-- laws? caller: i am just saying people think they need guns for protection, but most of the time their loved ones are being shot. host: any response for her? guest: one of the interesting things we have seen coming from the president since the shooting on friday is he is not limited his discussion just to mass shootings like the one in connecticut. he has really emphasize that there are shootings every day, whether they're in his hometown of chicago, and places like minnesota or elsewhere. for both sides that would change the debate, because people who favor gun control have wanted the president to take a look at this subject. people who oppose gun control will see the president's rhetoric of this as confirming their fears that he has a broader agenda.

host: richard in florida. please go ahead with your question for david ingram. caller: good morning. i have been a hunter all my life. i hunted pheasant and deer. i only needed one shot for a pheasant. i hunted deer with a similar shot. i was a member of the nra for 20 years. i participated in many tournament. it was me in arizona when the congressman was shot and i went crazy, i guarantee there would be 30 people lying on the ground. there is no need for these assault weapons and pistols with 30 round clips.

look at the stand your ground law and florida. if someone threatens you, you take your gun out and shoot them in self-defense. just the other day, a customer got disturbed and started hollering. but so when the gentleman had calmed down, they had an altercation and the guy took his gun out and shot the fellow. did not kill him. they wrestle for the gunmen got shot again. if i did not like you for instance and no one was around, i could take my weapon and could legally carry it because i have a permit, and i could kill you. then all i have to do is punch myself in the nose, call the police. host: got the point. guest: this will play out at the state level as well after the

shooting with treyvone martin, there was a debate about stand your ground. that debate will continue. >> he talked about the clipped magazine, some of the things that have been discussed as legislative goals. does he have anything to do without the debate? guest: not that i am aware of. host: how many states have the stand your ground type wall? law?t-- type- guest: would not know for sure. caller: good morning. i am a vietnam veteran. i specialize in weapons for the military p. belong to the nra. i personally have guns of my

own. i have a gun safe. my guns are locked up continuously. i think they're going to put any restraint on anyone, it should be that if they have guns, that they remained locked up away from children. these people that go around and do the drive-by shootings and things, there is a thing called black market. you can get your guns on the streets at any point in time. you take the gun rights away, and you will have the bad guys have the guns, automatic weapons, something we cannot even get. guest: blocking guns of but home is an interesting subject we will continue to hear more about. -- locking up guns at home is an interesting subject we will continue to hear more about.

especially in the light of the shooting in connecticut where he was able to get the gun from his mother. one fear is that if we do require some how the guns remain locked up at home, the only way to enforce that is to taken complaints from people or have home inspections. obviously it is not going to happen. is seen as on it unenforceable law. host: here is some comments that have come in -- jim says all firearms are subject to background checks, no matter where they are sold.

the president made an announcement yesterday. we want to play that and then talk to you about it. >> not some washington commission. this is not something where folks will be studying the issue for six months and publishing a report gets red and then pushed aside. this is a team that has a very specific tasks, to pull together real reforms right now. i asked joe to lead this effort in part because he wrote the 1994 macron -- crime bill that brought down there rate of violent crime in this country. that bill also included the assault weapons ban that was publicly supported at the time by former presidents, including ronald reagan. the good news is there is already a growing consensus for us to build from. the majority of american support beginning the sale of military- style assault weapons. the majority of americans

support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. the majority of americans support walls where acquiring background checks before all purchases so that criminals cannot take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who will not take the responsibility of doing a background check at all. i urge the new congress to hold books on these measures in a timely manner. host: david ingram, how much teeth with this task force have? guest: it is made up of the vice-president and i think for cabinet members, so they have power themselves. this is not a group of unelected out of office people that are retired and doing this for fun. this is their job. together they could potentially come up with other things to do on an executive level without

any loss from congress, but it sounds like this is a commitment from the president to send a draft bill to congress by the end of january. he has given himself a hard deadline. i think he is setting an expectation that he is going to do that and do it quickly. host: a few minutes left with our guest. curt in flint, michigan. caller: good morning. one quick comment. then i will hang up. criminals do not care what laws you put in, they will get the weapons, get whatever they need to get the job done. thank you. goodbye. guest: that is certainly true to the extent that that is how criminals think. this is a problem that people disagree with what the solution will be, the problem being gun violence like the shooting on friday. if we all agreed on exactly what

the solution work, then congress would pass it tomorrow, but they do not agree. i think we will see a debate about the most effective solutions. do they have to do with mental health? when the ding the supply of fire arms? the combination? are there other things that can be done? -- limiting the supply of fire arms. host: this is a tweet in one to build a question from it. do you have a definition of an assault and gun rifle, and whether or not you do or not, as well could the president change the definition of assault? guest: that is a fascinating question. if you look at legislation that has been introduced in the past, the definition of an assault weapon goes on for pages and not an easy question

lawmakers have been able to give a simple answer to. some people ridiculed as guns that look scary, because the definition has included a collapsible parts of a semi- automatic rifle or other seemingly cosmetic changes. so i do not think i am prepared to offer my own definition, but there are many definitions out there. it is sometimes used interchangeably as people meaning of semi-automatic rifle. there are some semiautomatic rifles that would not be banned under proposals. host: how important is the heller case from 2008? guest: enormously important. the decision came out in 2008 and struck down what was a total ban on firearms in d.c.

this is the first time really the supreme court has not said unambiguously that this is -- that there is a second amendment right that individuals have fire arms. that has to manifest. one is as long as the supreme court has the current makeup, insurers there can never be a total gun ban or confiscation. on the other hand, the supreme court has said certain kinds of gun restrictions are ok. they said explicitly it is ok to prohibit felons from running fire arms. gun-control from the supreme court perspective is on the second minute, but only on the second amendment. host: please go ahead with your question, charles. caller: i have a few comments.

my biggest complaint about this, for example, i own a ar15. it came from the factory with a 30 round magazine. i basically bought it for target shooting and home defense. the thing that really irritates me is you walk into a gun show, just about any state, and here is a drum magazine you can put andand it00-160 rounds i it will fit in just about any gun that fires to buy six. they make is 60 round magazine for the ar 15. my thing is if it comes from the factory with a third round magazine, leave it alone, but go after the guys that are selling

these -- you want to define high capacity, 160 round -- host: i think we got the point. guest: we will see debates on these very exact, a very specific items. host: we of an talking with david ingram are reuters. we appreciate it. we will and a few minutes early today, because the late senator daniel, his body has just arrived at the capitol. he will lie in state. these are live pictures outside the capital. this is the hearst that is carrying his body and casket. people lie in state for the entire day from about noon until 8:00 eastern time. here comes the family. this feeling will be open to the public. the congressional leadership will make remarks at 10:00 this

morning. c-span will be live with this coverage on several of the platforms. the house will be in at noon today debating the fiscal cliff. we take you to live coverage of his lying in state.